IntelliBriefs bring you Intelligence briefs on Geopolitics , Security and Intelligence from around the world . We gather information and insights from multiple sources and present you in a digestible format to quench your thirst for right perspective, with right information at right time at right place . We encourage people to contact us with any relevant information that other news media organizations don't cover . Contact :intellibriefs@gmail.com

August 14, 2010

13 August 2010: Apparently four unconnected issues have come to occupy controversial centrestage this week. These are the H1-B visa fee hike matter, the "superbug" charge against India, gaining access to Blackberry messages for security reasons, and lastly the Walter Anderson escape scandal. But these are not unconnected. They collectively show India a way to overthrow its shackled past and to make its own future. If India chooses to remain uninstructed after this, it does so at its own peril.

The Walter Anderson issue takes India back more than twenty-five years, to the final decade of the Cold War, when the US could exert considerable pressure on this country, as it did then, and still does, although moderated by its own precipitate decline. Rajiv Gandhi was the prime minister then. The Ronald Reagan administration leaned on him to get Walter Anderson bailed out and flown out of the country. Conveniently, the Manmohan Singh government cannot trace the records related to Walter Anderson's flight. Two days ago, Arjun Singh made a surprise appearance in Parliament and lied that P.V.Narasimha Rao, the home minister, had ordered him to free Anderson. The Congress party couldn't have found a worse advocate for Rajiv Gandhi's alleged innocence than Arjun Singh. Nobody in the country believes a word he says.

But Rajiv Gandhi's culpability in the Anderson scandal is not the entire issue. The fact is India as a whole bowed to American pressure, which includes the Supreme Court. Bhopal is a matter of collective shame. Our national guilt about Bhopal has peaked late, but it is nevertheless welcome. One lesson to learn is never to permit the buildup of circumstances that enable a second Bhopal, and in this regard, it is absolutely essential that we protect the interests of Indian citizens fully in the civil nuclear liability bill. Only because of Left and BJP opposition, the bill has been held up. Left to it, the Manmohan Singh would have long passed it. The opposition should not accept any liability compensation from foreign suppliers that is less than $10 billion provided in the US Price Anderson Act, with a discretionary built-in scope to raise this to twice the amount. (These are the sums in conversation for BP's Gulf of Mexico oil spill.)

Foreign suppliers must be held fully liable in case of a nuclear accident. The distinction between suppliers-operators that suppliers, especially US ones, make is untenable. If a liability law sharing the responsibility for a mishap between operator-supplier delays the entry of overseas power reactor manufacturers, that's an outcome India must happily embrace.

The Blackberry affair shows India is not powerless. Its huge market of users, for phones, power reactors and masses of other things, gives it infinite buyers' leverage, which it must boldly employ. Blackberry first refused to play ball, citing privacy considerations. Then it claimed helplessness, saying its technology made consumers masters, where it couldn't intervene even if it wished to. The Union home ministry refused to budge from its demand to access its communications for national security reasons. Fearing a ban, Blackberry is coming around. That's the route to take for India.

Finally, there are the superbug and H1-B visa fee hike issues. The visa fee hike is unacceptable, and it is right that India and its IT companies have protested it. It is a clear protectionist measure against services provided by Indian IT companies. Faced with unflagging recession and nil job creation, president Barack Obama has vowed to stop employment transferring to India and China. This is a foretaste of what's to come. India has to resist it and to understand that if the Western recession worsens, its growth will be targeted in every conceivable and inconceivable way. One of those inconceivable ways has been flagged by the superbug controversy. That the superbug specifically has been named after New Delhi cannot be tolerated, much less that the published study about it in Lancet is embarrassingly and shockingly unscientific. One of its principal Indian authors has dissociated from its findings.

The point is this is the beginning of a campaign to slander India. Despite its huge problems and internal contradictions, India is growing after centuries of slavery and thralldom. The growth is not courtesy any government but because of the entrepreneurial genius of Indians. This growth scares the world. While India truly strives for and believes that its rise is peaceful, the West after China won't easily permit of that. Be warned.

N.V.Subramanian is Editor, www.NewsInsight.net, and writes internationally on strategic affairs.

Coinciding with the63rd anniversary of Pakistan's Independence Day, Baloch freedom-fighters have stepped up their freedom struggle in different parts of Balochistan, including Quetta, the provincial capital. There has been a number of incidents of attacks on the police and para-military forces, rocket-firings and targeted killings of Punjabis living in the province. Incidents have also been reported from Gwadar, where the Chinese have constructed a major port.

2. On August 13, 2010, the day before Pakistan's Independence Day, seven persons---- three Punjabi policemen, a Pashtun soldier of the Frontier Corps and three Punjabi civilians---- were killed. The three Punjabi policemen died when the freedom-fighters attacked their check-post in the Chaki Shawani area of Saryab and took away the arms and ammunition kept there. A Pashtun Subedar of the Frontier Corps was killed when the freedom-fighters atrtacked an FC checkpost near the Rakshan river in the Panjgur area and took away the stored arms and ammunition.

3. According to the "Daily Times" of Lahore (August 14), there were three rocket attacks in Quetta and explosions and hand-grenade attacks in Khuzdar, Gwadar and Mastung. The residence of Mr.Akbar Hussein Durrani, the Home Secretary of the provincial Government, was among the places targeted by one of the rocket attacks in Quetta, The Home Secretary escaped, but a bystander was seriously injured. One of the rocket attacks in Quetta also targeted a Shia place of worship.

4. There were two explosions in Gwadar targeting the offices of the Deputy Commissioner and Radio Pakistan. The buildings were damaged, but there were no human casualties.There were two explosions in Khuzdar near the Government Model High School and another outside the Deputy Commissioner’s office. In Mastung, a hand grenade was thrown at the residence of a doctor. However, no casualties were reported. In Khuzdar, a hand grenade was thrown at a power grid station in the Sorab area.

5. The Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) has claimed the responsibility for the attack on the police check post , in which three police personnel were killed. It said that the attack was in retaliation for the continuous recovery of bullet-riddled bodies of allegedly those who had been kept in illegal detention by the intelligence and security agencies.

7. On the Independence Day, 16 Punjabi settlers were killed by unidentified gunmen in two incidents. Ten of them were travelling in a bus and the remaining were casual labourers. There has been no claim of responsibility for these incidents. ( 15-8-10)

( Written for the Independence Day issue of “India Abroad”, a weekly of the US published by Rediff.com )

As India celebrates its 63rd Independence Day, the focus will be on all the great things we have achieved.

Let us also highlight what we have not achieved. Our failure to force our political class to bring about a greater transparency in governance, administration and national security management should top the list. We, the citizens of India, have been kept in the dark by all political parties that had ruled the country since 1947 about one wrong-doing after another.We hardly know the truth about so many things that went wrong during our 63 years of freedom.

We do not know 48 years after the humiliating performance of the Indian Army at the hands of the Chinese Army as to why the Indian Army fared badly. Was it due to intelligence failure? Was it due to deficiencies in military command and control? Was it the result of poor political handling? An enquiry was held by the Government to determine what went wrong and why. The report of the committee of enquiry consisting of Lieutenant-General Henderson Brooks and Brigadier P S Bhagat, the then Commandant of the Indian Military Academy, has not been shared with the public. It is alleged that the retired Lt.Gen, a distinguished Anglo-Indian officer who subsequently settled down abroad, retained a copy of his report which he was readily showing to foreign analysts and observers.Foreigners know the truth about the findings of the committee, but not we the citizens of India.

During the 1965 war with Pakistan, the advance of the Indian Army into the Lahore sector was stalled. The Army blamed the Indian intelligence for its lack-lustre performance in the Lahore sector despite the famous victory scored by our tanks over Pakistan's US-gifted Patton tanks in the Khemkaran sector. The Army alleged that the intelligence on the Ichogil Canal furnished by the Intelligence Bureau was found vague and unhelpful. An enquiry was ordered by an official of the Ministry of Home Affairs. What were the findings of the enquiry? We, the citizens of India, have not been told about it.

In 1966, we were totally taken by surprise by the revolt of the Mizo National Front headed by Laldenga. The IB was again blamed. An enquiry was held. It was alleged that the enquiry report brought out failings by the Congress leadership in Assam, which facilitated the MNF revolt. The report has remained suppressed for 44 years.

Between 1975 and 1977, the country passed through a dark period in its history when Indira Gandhi imposed a State of Emergency to counter a public agitation against her headed by Jayaprakash Narayan . The press was muzzled. Critics of the Government were jailed without evidence of criminal conduct against them. The Intelligence and investigative agencies were misused to spy on Indian citizens in India as well as abroad. We, the citizens of India, still do not know the entire truth of the Emergency. The guilty men and women of the Emergency managed to flourish for years thereafter despite their wrong-doings.

The Government of Morarji Desai, which came to power after the defeat of the Congress in the elections of 1977, appointed a high-power committee headed by L.P.Singh, who was Home Secretary in the 1960s, to enquire into allegations regarding the misuse of the intelligence and investigative agencies during the Emergency. Its report has remained hidden from the public.

It has been reported that attempts by some persons to seek access to the papers and files relating to the Emergency under the Right To Information Act have met a stonewall with the reply that the papers are not traceable.

In 1984, the country went through a colossal human tragedy in Bhopal due to the leakage of poisonous gas from the Union Carbide factory. Thousands of innocent civilians died immediately after the accident. Thousands more continue to die as a result of the after-effects of the gas. Twenty-six years after the tragedy,we, the citizens of this country, still do not know who are the guilty men and women of Bhopal. Who ordered the release on bail of Warren Andersen, the US-based Chairman of the Union Carbide Corporation, and helped him to leave the country and why? Was there a quid pro quo between the then Government headed by Rajiv Gandhi and the Ronald Reagan Administration? If so, what was it? An analyst had drawn attention to the fact that the son of a senior Muslim Congress leader, who was close to Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, was then facing prosecution in the US under some criminal charges and frantic efforts were allegedly being made by the Congress and the Government to persuade the Reagan Adminisatration to drop the case against him and let him return to India.Before the visit of Rajiv Gandhi to Washington DC in June 1985, the case against him was dropped by the Reagan Administration and he was allowed to leave the US as mysteriously as Andersen was allowed to leave India without blemish. Was this the quid pro quo? No answers possible because no papers available. Important decisions involving the fate of thousands of victims of the tragedy were taken and the papers relating to them are supposedly untraceable. Take it or leave it. We the citizens of India have been left with no other option.

Between 1987 and 1989, the country passed through one of the greatest public scandals relating to the purchase of the Bofors guns by the Indian Army. The then Government misused the intelligence and investigative agencies to prevent the truth from coming out. As blatantly as the Richard Nixon Administration did in the US in the Wateregate scandal. The Nixon Administration could not ultimately succeed in its cover-up. Many heads rolled.Nixon was forced out of office in humiliation. In our country? Not all the relevant questions have found an answer. No heads have rolled.

One can go on citing many more such instances. That need not be necessary. Is there no way of breaking this stonewall which repeatedly seeks to prevent the citizens of this country from knowing the truth?

There is. Wikileaks has shown the way. It is time for an Indian version of Wikileaks. That is the crying need of the hour as India celebrates its 63rd Independence Day.Posted by B.RAMAN

August 10, 2010

Three interlocking crises are striking Russia simultaneously: the highest recorded temperatures Russia has seen in 130 years of recordkeeping; the most widespread drought in more than three decades; and massive wildfires that have stretched across seven regions, including Moscow.

The crises threaten the wheat harvest in Russia, which is one of the world’s largest wheat exporters. Russia is no stranger to having drought affect its wheat crop, a commodity of critical importance to Moscow’s domestic tranquility and foreign policy. Despite the severity of the heat, drought, and wildfires, Moscow’s wheat output will cover Russia’s domestic needs. Russia will also use the situation to merge its neighbors into a grain cartel.

A History of Drought and Wildfire

Flooding peat bogs appears to be bringing the fires under control. Smoke from the fires has kept Moscow nearly shut down for a week. The larger concern is the effect of the fires — and the continued heat and drought, which has created a state of emergency across 27 regions — on Russia’s ordinarily massive grain harvest and exports.

Cyclical droughts (and wildfires) mean Russian grain production levels fluctuate between 75 and 100 million tons from year to year. The extent of the drought and wildfires this year has prompted Russian officials to revise the country’s 2010 estimated grain production to 65 million tons, though Russia holds 24 million tons of wheat in storage — meaning it has enough to comfortably cover domestic demand (which is 75 million tons) even if the drought gets worse.

The larger challenge Moscow has faced in years of drought and wildfire has been transporting grain across Russia’s immense territory. Russia’s grain belt lies in the southern European part of the country from the Black Sea across the Northern Caucasus to Western Kazakhstan, capped on the north by the Moscow region. This is Russia’s most fertile region, which is supported by the Volga River.

Though drought and wildfires have struck Russia over the past three years, they have not affected its main grain-producing region. Instead, they struck regions in the Ural area that provide grain for Siberia. Those fires tested Russia’s transit infrastructure, one of its fundamental challenges. Russia has no real transportation network uniting its European heartland and its Far East save one railroad, the Trans-Siberian. While its grain belt does have some of the best transportation infrastructure in the country, it is designed for sending grain to the Black Sea or Europe — not to Siberia. The Kremlin began planning for disruptions of grain shipments to Siberia during the droughts and fires of 2007-2009. During that period, Moscow established massive grain storage units in the Urals and in producing regions of Kazakhstan along the Russian border.

This year’s drought and fires do not primarily affect Russia’s transportation network, but rather the grain-producing regions in the European part of Russia that make up the bulk of Russia’s grain exports. These regions lie on the westward distribution network, with the port of Novorossiysk on the Black Sea handling more than 50 percent of Russian exports.

Russia has focused largely on being a major grain exporter, raking in more than $4 billion a year for the past three years off the trade. This year, the Kremlin announced Aug. 5 that it would temporarily ban grain exports from Aug. 15 to Dec 31. Two reasons prompted the move. The first is the desire to prevent domestic grain prices from skyrocketing due to feared shortages. Russia’s grain market is remarkably volatile. Grain prices inside Russia already have risen nearly 10 percent. (Globally, wheat futures on the Chicago Board of Trade have risen nearly 20 percent in the past month, the largest jump since the early 1970s.)

The second reason is that the Kremlin wants to ensure that its supplies and production will hold up should the winter wheat harvest decline as well. Winter wheat, planted beginning at the end of August, typically fully replenishes Russian grain supplies. Further unseasonable heat, drought or fires could damage the winter wheat harvest, meaning the Kremlin will want to curtail exports to ensure its storage silos remain full.

Russia’s conservatism when it comes to ensuring supplies and price stability arises from the reality that adequate grain supplies long have been equated with social stability in Russia. Unlike other commodities, food shortages trigger social and political instability with shocking rapidity in all countries. As do some other countries, Russia relies on grain more than any other foodstuff; other food categories like meat, dairy and vegetables are too perishable for most of Russia to rely on.

Russia’s concentration on food volatility has a long history. Lenin called grain Russia’s “currency of currencies,” and seizing grain stockpiles was one of the Red Army’s first moves during the Russian Revolution. In this tradition, the Kremlin will husband its grain before exporting it for monetary gain. And this falls in line with Russia’s overall economic strategy of using its resources as a tool in domestic and foreign policy.

Exports and Foreign Policy

Russia is a massive producer and exporter of myriad commodities besides grain. It is the largest natural gas producer in the world and one of the largest oil and timber producers. The Russian government and domestic economy are based on the production and export of all these commodities, making Kremlin control — either direct or indirect — of all of these sectors essential to national security.

Domestically, Russians enjoy access to the necessities of life. Kremlin ownership over the majority of the country’s economy and resources gives the government leverage in controlling the country on every level — socially, politically, economically and financially. Thus, a grain crisis is more than just about feeding the people; it strikes at part of Russia’s overall domestic economic security.

Russia’s use of its resources as a tool is also a major part of Kremlin foreign policy. Its massive natural resource wealth and subsequent relative self-sufficiency allows it to project power effectively into the countries around it. Energy has been the main tool in this tactic. Moscow very publicly has used energy supplies as a political weapon, either by raising prices or by cutting supplies. It is also willing to use non-energy trade policy to effect foreign policy ends, and grain exports fall very easily into Moscow’s box of economic tools.

Russia is using the current grain crisis as a foreign policy tool even beyond its own exports, prices and supplies. It has asked both Kazakhstan and Belarus to also temporarily suspend their grain exports. Belarus is a minor grain exporter, with nearly all of its exports going to Russia. But Kazakhstan is one of the top five wheat exporters in the world, traditionally producing 21 million tons of wheat and exporting more than 50 percent of that. The same drought that has struck Russia also has hit Kazakhstan; production there is expected to be slashed by a third, or 7 million tons.

Kazakhstan traditionally exports to southern Siberia, Turkey, Iran and its fellow Central Asian states, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. For the first time, Kazakhstan had planned to send grain exports to Asia. It had contracted to send approximately 3 million tons of grain east, with 2 million of those supplies heading to South Korea and the remainder to be split between China and Japan. The drought has forced Kazakhstan to reassess whether it can fulfill those contracts along with contracts for its immediate region.

Russia’s request that Belarus and Kazakhstan cease grain shipments does not seem primarily connected to Russia’s concern over supplies, but instead looks to be more political. The three countries formed a customs union in January, something that has caused much political and economic turmoil. Kazakhstan sought to lock in its president’s desire to remain beholden to Russia even after he steps down, while Belarus reluctantly joined as Russia already controlled more than half of the Belarusian economy.

For Moscow, however, the union was a key piece of its geopolitical resurgence. The Russian-Kazakh-Belarusian Customs Union was not set up like a Western free trade zone, where the goal is to encourage two-way trade by reducing trade barriers, but as a Russian plan to expand Moscow’s economic hold over Belarus and Kazakhstan. Thus far, the Customs Union has undermined Belarus and Kazakhstan’s industrial capacity, welding the two states further into the Russian economy.

Since the customs union has been in effect, Russia has quickly turned the club into a political tool, demanding that its fellow members sign onto politically motivated economic targeting of other states. In late July, Russia asked both Kazakhstan and Belarus to join a ban on wine and mineral water from Moldova and Georgia after continued spats with each of the pro-Western countries. Russia has added another level of demands in light of the grain shortages. As of this writing, neither Astana nor Minsk has accepted or declined the demands from Moscow, with grain exporting season just a month away.

Given current Russian production and storage supplies, Russia doesn’t actually need Belarus or Kazakhstan to curb their exports. Instead, it is seeking to use the drought and fires to create a regional grain cartel with its new customs union partners.

And this leads to the question of the other former Soviet grain heavyweight, Ukraine. Ukraine, which does not belong to the customs union, is the world’s third-largest wheat exporter. In 2009, Ukraine exported 21 million tons of its 46 million-ton production. Also hit by the drought, Ukraine revised its projected production and exports for 2010 down 20 percent, with exports down to 16 million tons. Some fear Ukraine will have to slash its export forecasts even further. Moscow will most likely want to control what its large grain-exporting neighbor does, should it be concerned with supplies or prices. Despite Russia’s recent actions with regard to Belarus and Kazakhstan, however, Ukraine has not publicly announced any bans on grain exports.

If Russia is going to exert its political power over the region via grain, it must have Ukraine on board. If Russia can control all of these states’ wheat exports, then Moscow will control 15 percent of global production and 16 percent of global exports. Kiev has recently turned its political orientation to lock step with Moscow, as seen in matters of politics, military and regional spats. But this most recent crisis hits at a major national economic piece for Ukraine. Whether Kiev bends its own national will to continue its further entwinement with Moscow remains to be seen.

Views expressed here are author"s own and not of this website. Full disclaimer is at the bottom.

(The author is a Professor in International Economics in Nagasaki University, Japan)

The problem of Afghanistan cannot be solved unless we try to explain the recent history of that country in a realistic way. The Western failure to stabilize Afghanistan is due to its mistake to put forward a false propaganda as history.

British Empire preceded the most recent American Empire in Iraq and Afghanistan, in which the Britain is now a junior partner. Problem of Afghanistan is due to paranoid hostility of the Anglo-Americans against the Russian. The great game of 19th century between the Czarist Russia and the British is now being played with different actors but the ambitions of the parties are the same.

British are against the Russian for at least 150 years. British invaded Czarist Russia in Crimea to support the most dreadful Muslim Sultan of Turkey, who was also the Khalifa for all Muslims. British helped Japan in her battle against Czarist Russia in 1905 over Korea. The relationship between Russia and Afghanistan was close even at the Czarist time as the British were defeated in the first Anglo-Afghan war in 1839-42 because of the support Afghanistan had received from Russia. Since the Soviet Government was installed, Afghanistan had maintained close relationship with it, except for the time when it was occupied by Britain in 1930s. Modern Afghanistan was built with the Soviet assistance. Afghanistan, just like India in 1971, had signed a mutual military support treaty with the Soviet Union. Thus, there was no reason whatsoever for the Soviet Union to invade a fellow socialist country, Afghanistan in 1979, which was depended upon the Soviet Union for every single item until 1992, when it was occupied by Pakistan, in the guise of Muzzahadins.

This is the unpalatable truth the Anglo-Americans have decided to ignore. They put forward a different version of the history, which is far from the reality. In their history, the Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan, then a socialist country, and Muzzahadins from Pakistan were the freedom fighters who drove away the Russian tanks with horses and country made rifles. They along with the Western media that had promoted the above version of mythology, rather than pointing out the real culprit Pakistan, are putting the blame of destructions of Afghanistan and the rise of Talibans on the Russians. They forgot that the majority of the Soviet army was drawn from its several central Asian republics (now independent countries), who were ethnically the same as the Afghans. They could not kill their own ethnic brothers and destroy their homes. There was no carpet-bombing on Afghan cities by the Soviet Air Force. All cities along with the major roads, airfields, universities, schools were in tact until 1992, except those in Pakhtia province in Eastern Afghanistan, occupied by Pakistan for a long time since 1978.

It was Pakistan that had destroyed Afghanistan and killed thousands of people. In the city of Mazar-E-Sharif alone, at least 5000 Afghans were killed by the Pakistanis, calling themselves as Islamic Muzzahadins, the organization that was created by the CIA in 1978 from the ranks of the Pakistani army. Muzzahadin was created by President Carter and pampered by President Reagan, during whose time Al-Queada was created as well by the CIA. Taliban was created by President Clinton. Now his wife Mrs.Hillary Clinton has the same people as advisers who have destroyed both Afghanistan and Yugoslavia for the sake of the Muslim terrorists: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Madeleine Albright, and Robin Raffael. This is the exact reason Mrs.Clinton and her advisers are so much interested to have a deal with the Taliban, which is nothing but an extension of the Pakistani army. This is also the reason why the Western media never blame Pakistan, a terrorist state that has supplied terrorists for all places of conflicts, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Kashmir, and has destroyed Afghanistan. Without knowing the history it is impossible for anyone to understand why USA now is so keen to hand over Afghanistan to Pakistan, the country the British had created in 1947 and the Americans have pampered since 1956. The Pakistan army has provided Washington with an instrument for crushing or hindering progressive social movements, not just inside Pakistan, but also in South Asia. Close relations of both India and Afghanistan with the Soviet Union were anathema to Washington, which deployed Pakistan against both countries.

When a socialist government came to power in Afghanistan in July 1978, the U.S. decided to overthrow it using Pakistan as an agent. Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Adviser in the Carter administration, knew that the policy to invade Afghanistan by Pakistani army would, as he put it, "induce a Soviet intervention in Afghanistan". Brzezinski stated in a recent interview: "That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap". When the Soviets came in December 1979 to rescue Afghanistan from Pakistani invasion, the U.S. poured $6 billion in military aid to Pakistan. The ensuing war destroyed Afghanistan, ending all hope of any progressive reforms.

With the withdrawal of the Soviets in 1989, Afghanistan became a centre for U.S. and Pakistani-backed international terrorism. Islamist fighters trained there poured into Central Asia and India, aiming to create a pan-Islamic state stretching from Kashmir to Kazakhstan. The Taliban was a CIA-ISI creation as well, and its relations with Washington only soured when the two failed to reach an accord on sharing the oil riches of Central Asia.

In 1989, the last soldier of the Soviet Union had left Afghanistan. A full-scale attack on the non-Muslims of Kashmir also had started in 1989 to drive them away from Kashmir. General Zia addressed a meeting of selected military commanders and top bosses of I.S.I. (Inter Services Intelligence) in April 1988 and said:

" As you know, due to our preoccupation in Afghanistan, I have not been able to put these plans before you earlier. Let there be no mistake, however, that our aim remains quite clear and firm and that is the liberation of the Kashmir Valley - our Kashmiri brothers cannot be allowed to stay with India for any length of time, now. By the grace of God, we have managed to accumulate large stocks of modern arms and ammunition from US consignments intended for Afghan Mujahideen. This will help our brethren to achieve their goals". Benazir Bhutoo, the darling of the Western media, was the main architect of that plan to turn Kashmir from " a heaven on earth" to "a killing field", as she with the help of Turkey turned Bosnia into hell by sending 20,000 strong Arab army trained in Pakistan to the former Yugoslavia to kill the Serbians there. Thus, the relationship between Pakistan, Muzzahadins and USA, which has promoted terrorism in Kashmir, Afghanistan, and former Yugoslavia, cannot be ignored.

Pakistan has invaded Afghanistan informally many years before the Soviets came to Afghanistan in December 1979. Major General Naseerullah Babar, later Interior Minister of Benazir Bhutto and the organizer of Taliban, said,

" In October 1973 an Afghan named Habibur Rahman Shaheed came and contacted me about setting up a resistance movement in Afghanistan with active military assistance of Pakistan. I conveyed the same to Zulfiqer Ali Bhutto, then the Prime Minister, who accepted my proposal in view of the changed situation in Afghanistan and asked me to organize training of Afghans. Thus, we established the base of Afghan Mujahideen resistance in 1973. We gave them basic infantry weapons, some specialized training in how to conduct guerrilla warfare. It was a top-secret affair and the secret was shared between Bhutto, I, Aziz Ahmad and Tikka Khan, then the Army Chief. Who were the pioneers of the anti-Daud Afghan resistance? They were Ustad Rabbani, Hikmatyar, and a host of others who came to Pakistan after October 1973. Mr Bhutto laid the foundation of the Afghan resistance in 1973. He had the foresight and vision to do it. As a matter of fact we created the organizational network which was used by Zia and the USA to oppose the Soviets." ("Remembering our Warrior-Babar the Great" in Defence Journal, April 2001).

If Pakistan was so opposed to Osama Bin Laden and terrorism, why then did it appointed a retired military general and Pakistan"s Interior Minister under Benazir Bhutto, Naseerullah Babar to create the Taliban? Major General Naseerullah Babar was a leader of the Jamiat-e-Ulema-i-Islami, which was a political party that controlled the Madrasahs (religious schools) where the Talibs (students) were recruited to create the Taliban. During the 1965 war with India, Babar was awarded Sitara-e-Jurat. In the 1971 war against India, he commanded an artillery brigade. Then he was appointed Governor of NWFP (North West Frontier Province) because of his close association with Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. He contested the 1977 election on a Pakistan Peoples Party ticket from his home district of Nowshera. In 1988, he became the Special Assistant to Benazir Bhutto to mobilize the Muzzahideens to destroy both Afghanistan and India.

A contingent of 20,000 heavily armed men was formed from the Harkat-ul- Ansar (HUA) terrorist group and trained by the ISI of Pakistan, which was then sent to Yugoslavia at the request of the Clinton administration. About 200 Pakistani Muslims living in the UK went to Pakistan, trained in HUA camps and joined the HUA"s contingent in Bosnia. In January 1993 already, a Pakistani vessel with ten containers of arms, which were destined for the Bosnia, was intercepted in the Adriatic Sea by the Greeks. Sophisticated anti-tank guided missiles were air lifted by the Pakistani intelligence agency, ISI, to help Bosnians fight the Serbs.

During an interview on Fox TV in the summer 2006, the former US federal prosecutor John Loftus reported that British intelligence had used the Al-Muhajiroun group in London to recruit terrorists with British passports for the war against the Serbs in Kosovo. One British of Pakistani origin took very active part in the civil war in Yugoslavia was Omar Saeed Sheikh. Omar Sheikh, at the behest of General Mahmood Ahmed, head of the ISI, wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the leading 9/11 hijacker, before the New York attacks [as confirmed by Dennis Lormel, director of FBI"s financial crimes unit].

Omar Skeikh has killed the journalist Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street Journal, who has disclosed the link between Al-Queada, Pakistan"s ISI and the CIA. According to Benazir Bhutto Omar Sheikh also has killed Ben Laden later after his job of the 9/11 incident was completed (according to the statement of Bhutto on November 2, 2007 in Al-Jazeera TV channel). Thus, the link between Al-Queada, Pakistan"s ISI and CIA is obvious, thus raising serious question about the real purpose of the "war on terror" in Afghanistan. In recent past, particularly since 1978, USA and NATO has been actively helping Pakistan and their fellow Muslims to subvert all progressive governments in Eurasia. They could not understand that they are also helping the real ambition of Saudi Arabia-UAE and the rest of the Islamic nations to re-establish the Islamic Empire from France to the Philippines and from Russia to Sri Lanka and eventually turn the entire world Islamic. Because for people like Zbigniew Brzezinski and Madeleine Albright, containment of Russia in Central Asia is much more important than the Muslim terrorism originated in Pakistan.

According to Hasan Al Banna, founder of the Mujahideen movement, and the Muslim Brotherhood, ".the homeland of the Muslim expands to encompass the entire world; it is compulsory for every Muslim to establish a functionally Islamic society in every country on earth."

By refusing to understand the real aim of Pakistan, USA and its allies are playing in the hands of the Muslim terrorists. It is essential for the West to accept that there was no Soviet Invasion, but even before 1978, Pakistani army, financed by Saudi Arabia, UAE and armed by USA, dressed up as tribal invaded Afghanistan. When Kabul was about to fall in October 1979, then only the Soviet Union decided to send its army to defend Afghanistan against Pakistan. The Soviet army was not defeated. By 1985, the situation in Afghanistan was stabilized and Gorbachev has decided that the Afghan Army can defend its country; thus, there would no need for the Soviet army. In deed, the Afghan army defended Afghanistan until 1992, when the Soviet Union fell apart and the new President of Russia Yeltsin cut off all supplies particularly the oil supplies to the Afghan Army. Then Pakistan has destroyed immediately every cities of Afghanistan, killed thousands of Afghan people, and turned Afghanistan into a province of Pakistan until 2001.

Current problem of Afghanistan cannot be solved by handing it over to Pakistan, what now the Anglo-Americans, tired of continuous war along with depressing economic scene, now want. Both Russia and India must be included to help stabilize Afghanistan by removing Pakistan from the picture.

However, the purpose of the Anglo-American is not to help Afghans to have stable country but to have a permanent military base for NATO in the southern flank of the former Soviet Union, to stir up trouble among the Muslims in Central Asia, or Georgians, or Ukranian to eventually break up Russia into pieces just like Yugoslavia. This is the imperialism of the new century, elaborated by the adviser to Blair, Robert Cooper, in his book "Reordering the World", by saying, " All the conditions for imperialism are there, the weak still need the strong, and the strong still need an orderly world. When dealing with more old fashioned kind of states outside the post modern continent of Europe, we need to revert to the rough methods of an earlier era, force, preemptive attack, deception, whatever is necessary to deal with those who still live in the 19th century world of every state for itself" (pp 15-16).

With the destruction of the Soviet Union, Western countries are now free to re-colonize the former colonies and take back the economic and social rights of the poor people throughout the world. If a country does not welcome multinational companies, privatize its public industries and financial services, open up itself for free flow of imports, regime change will be imposed to create an orderly condition, a stable environment for the foreign capital. Because non-imperialist options like foreign aid and economic control by the IMF and the World Bank are not enough for the impatient Western countries to control the resources of the world. In this new imperialism, both Russia and India are standing on the way of the Anglo-American design for this "new world order" but Pakistan has a very important role to supply the terrorists in any countries the Anglo-Americans want to destabilize. This is precisely the reason, India can be ignored, but Pakistan would be the new agent of the Western world to control Afghanistan.

Pakistan, August 09: The Taliban in Afghanistan was born in the late 1980s. And, the credit for its creation goes to Pakistan's covert military intelligence.To train the Army of Islam, the commissioners of Pakistan army selected 100 of the then existing madrasas,almost all Deobandi,in Pakistan.The training was executed by serving and retired army officers.The most important and the most active of these madrasas chosen were the Hamiya Uloom-e-Islami in the Binori mosque,Karachi and the Jamiya Ashrafiya in Lahore.These Islamic warriors,since then have spread their jihad to the Asian continent and later even took it to the United States. Bred in Pakistan madrasas,the fanatics are known by different names Harkat-ul-Ansar, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Al Qaeda, Markaz Dawa Al Irshad and Al Badr.

Discourse on the War with Georgia Rarely Refers to the Price Russia Is Now Paying for Its Assertive Unilateralism in the South Caucasus

For Russia, the August 2008 war with Georgia is now firmly incorporated into its heroic history, at least rhetorically. Russian forces responded to Georgia’s attack against the Russian peacekeepers and its citizens residing in South Ossetia. Russia recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to prevent any future conflict, which could be triggered by Georgia’s use of military force in either of the regions. And last but not least, Russia has demonstrated its “red lines” in the NATO enlargement process, by forcing the alliance to shelve its plans for Georgia’s membership in the foreseeable future. Moreover, Russia’s demonstration of force sent a signal to other post-Soviet states about the perils of attempting to challenge Russia’s vital interests in the region.

The main damage was done to Russia’s international reputation and its broader international agenda. Although the war did not provoke a sustained crisis in Russia’s relations with the West, it has weakened the chances of strategic rapprochement between them, by creating an issue on which Russia and the West (as well as most other states around the world) will continue to have irreconcilable differences for years to come. This issue will remain a serious obstacle for achieving progress on any priority issues on Moscow’s foreign policy agenda, from World Trade Organization membership to a visa-free regime with the EU, from creating a sustainable new paradigm in U.S.-Russian relations to revising conventional arms control in Europe and reshaping the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. What is worrying is that apart from Moscow’s assertion that “the West should recognize the new reality” – which clearly it won’t – there is no creative thinking on how to resolve the differences in either of these cases.

The absolute majority of states will not recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, not because of the merit of their case, but because their “independence” has been imposed by Moscow through the use of force and in clear violation of international law. The Kosovo case and the recent ruling of the International Court of Justice do not alter the context of this international position because the ruling concerns the legality of the unilateral declaration of independence by a sub-state entity, not the manner in which unilateral recognition has been imposed. Here the cases of Kosovo and Abkhazia/South Ossetia are remarkably different.

Hence, for the foreseeable future, the international community will continue to hold Russia responsible for dismembering the territory of its neighboring state by force, which the United States now calls “occupation.” This term, which was once applied to U.S. policy in Iraq, is not a simple value judgment, but a legal notion that entails responsibilities by an “occupying power,” as well as its limited nature.

Crisis management

Whether Russia accepts or rejects the notion of it being an occupying power in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it can hardly dispute the fact that it has become a party to these regional conflicts, as opposed to a mediator, as it was internationally recognized before the war.

Although the post-war Geneva Discussions have been constructed with elements of “strategic ambiguity,” which were necessary to get the political process going in the aftermath of the war, even this ambiguity does not hide the fact that all participants of these talks, except for Abkhazia and South Ossetia, treat Russia as a party to these conflicts, and perhaps the main one at that. Russian representatives, however, remain adamant that despite Russia’s military presence and its recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russia should retain the role of “bystander” – a facilitator or a guarantor – and insist that the conflicts remain unchanged by Russia’s intervention, remaining essentially Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-South Ossetian in nature.

Therefore Moscow insists that “non-use of force agreements” should be signed between Tbilisi and Sukhumi and Tbilisi and Tskhinvali respectively, but not, under any circumstance, between Moscow and Tbilisi. Clearly such proposals – which are akin to the recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia – are presently unacceptable to Georgia and other international mediators, none of whom intend to bestow any such recognition. Even Russia’s more constructive ideas about unilateral declarations on the non-use of force miss the important point. They ignore the fact that many international actors, not to mention Georgia itself, view Russia’s military presence in Abkhazia as a use of force – if only a benign one at present – which perpetuates insecurity rather than preventing a new conflict (as Moscow sees it).

This example of differences over the terms of the “non-use of force agreements” clearly demonstrates the difficulty that Russia’s unilateral recognition now presents for the long-term management of conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Both remain unresolved as long as no mutually acceptable political resolution is found, in regard to their status involving Sukhumi, Tskhinvali, Tbilisi and now Moscow. It is not hard to see that today, such political agreement is further out of reach than it was prior to August of 2008. Moreover, while the differences over status were easier to ignore in the first months and years after war – during the immediate crisis-response phase which focused on humanitarian concerns and putting in place ceasefire regimes – it will be harder to ignore during the next, more difficult and prolonged crisis-management phase, which is only just beginning.

The crisis-management policies will test the creativity of all the major players. For Russia, it will ultimately mean accepting the degree of international oversight over its policies in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, although the parameters of such scrutiny are yet to be defined. For Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it will mean accepting the fact that despite Russia’s recognition – and that of a handful of other countries – their position in reality remains unchanged. Moreover, Abkhazia – which was always more committed to achieving independence – might in reality become more dependent (albeit this time on a friendly Russia, not a hostile Georgia) in the near to medium-term future, and possibly more isolation. But perhaps the hardest test of all is faced by Georgia, which has to learn “strategic patience,” a skill to which it has been little predisposed in recent history.

Another important challenge created by the August War for Russia is the impact it has had on its role in the South Caucasus. For its small size and remote location at the fringes of great empires and their contemporary successors, the region has been remarkably divided ever since the fall of the Soviet Union. The August War has perpetuated old and created new divisions that pose serious challenges to Russia’s regional role. Today Russia finds itself in many ways in a similar position in the Caucasus as Turkey was in just a few years ago. Russia is now separated from the South Caucasus by its conflict with Georgia, its immediate neighbor in the region, which resulted in the suspension of political, economic and security ties between the two countries. Russia’s separation from the region has already had a negative impact on Russian-Armenian relations. Moreover, it made Abkhazia and South Ossetia a clear part of Russia’s North Caucasus policy, thus complicating Moscow’s relations with what is already a complex and unstable region, which already itself suffered from separatism. Finally, it has taken the South Caucasus region out of Moscow’s “region-building” mechanisms (such as the CIS), and increasingly now places the region in the EU’s “region-building” initiatives (such as Eastern Partnership), to which all three states now belong.

Some might argue that it is too early to judge the long-term impact of the new divisions on regional geopolitics in the South Caucasus. Clearly Russia remains an important player in the region, as was demonstrated when President Dmitry Medvedev recently spent six hours with the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan trying to push for progress on the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh “frozen” conflict.

Others argue that the fact that no progress has been achieved is more telling. At the same time, it remains unclear whether the delay in the ratification of the Armenian-Turkish protocols represents a temporary time-out for the parties, or a serious deadlock. If Armenian-Turkish reconciliation progresses, as is increasingly evident at the level of societies in both countries, and the normalization proceeds without provoking Azerbaijan, Russia’s role in the South Caucasus could wane.

Oksana Antonenko is a senior fellow and program director for Russia and Eurasia at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.

Aug 9th 2010 , by Daniel Kovalik

The biggest obstacle to the attempt first by the Bush Administration, and now by the Obama Administration, to achieve passage of the long-stalled Free Trade Agreement with Colombia is that country’s long-standing shameful reality as “the most dangerous country in the world for trade unionists,” to use the words of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the largest union confederation in the world, representing 176 million workers in 156 countries and territories.

Since 1986, over 2800 unionists have been assassinated in Colombia. The clear and ever-present danger to organized labor in Colombia is the most salient and undeniable fact about the U.S.’s favorite nation in the region.

Incredibly, it appears that adherents of the FTA may have commenced an effort to smear Venezuela with the same “danger to labor” brush in order to advance the prospects of the Colombia agreement by using bare statistics without elaboration or explanation to suggest that Colombia is no different. Nothing could be further from the truth.

According to the ITUC’s 2010 Annual Survey, of the 101 unionists assassinated in the world last year (2009), 48 (almost half) were Colombian. And, a recent, July 8, 2010 press release from the AFL-CI0 indicates that another 29 Colombian unionists were assassinated in the first half of 2010.

It is well-known that the assassination of unionists in Colombia is largely carried out by right-wing paramilitary groups linked to the Colombian government or by Colombian security forces themselves. Indeed, according to a 2007 report by Amnesty International on Colombia, “around 49 percent of human rights abuses against trade unionists were committed by paramilitaries [themselves linked to the Colombian state] and some 43 percent directly by the security forces.” And, the Colombian government up to its highest reaches, including President Alvaro Uribe himself, regularly (and quite falsely) stigmatizes unionists as “guerillas,” thereby knowingly setting up union leaders for paramilitary murder. Indeed, when I personally met with President Uribe as part of an AFL-CIO delegation in February 2008 at the Presidential Palace in Bogota and confronted him about this stigmatization, his proffered “defense” was that, when he was a student (presumably decades ago) his experience was that union leaders, student leaders and members of the press were in fact “guerillas.” In other words, in trying to fend off the claims that he stigmatized trade unionists, he merely repeated the stigmatization.

In light of all of this, the ITUC concluded in its 2010 Annual Survey that “[t]he historical and structural violence against the Colombian trade union movement remains firmly in place, manifesting itself in the form of systematic human and trade union rights violations. On average, men and women trade unionists in Colombia have been killed at the rate of one every three days over the last 23 years.”

This conclusion is in stark contrast to its conclusion about what is happening in Venezuela. Thus, while hardly uncritical of the situation confronting unionists in Venezuela, the ITUC, in its 2010 Annual Survey, concluded nonetheless that “[v]iolence linked to the fight for jobs continued to be the main reason behind the killing of trade unionists.” The ITUC explains this phenomenon in more detail in its 2009 Annual Survey. There, it states that “[a] delicate issue for the labour world in Venezuela is the persistent disputes over the right to work, which have cost the lives of at least 19 trade unionists and 10 other workers . . . . The situation is particularly acute in the construction and oil industries, where various interest groups and mafias have clashed over the negotiation and sale of jobs, which is affecting trade union activity per se.” The 2009 report goes on to note that “there has been a fall in the number of murders to the fight over jobs in comparison with the previous year (from 48 to 29 for the period from October 2007 to September 2008….”

In other words, the ITUC, which is recognized as the foremost authority on anti-union violence, views the killings of unionists in Colombia and Venezuela very differently – with the violence against unionists in Colombia being “structural” and “systematic,” almost invariably with government sanction; and the violence in Venezuela, on the other hand, stemming from mafia-like corruption largely within the union movement itself. This is a distinction with a huge difference. As the ITUC itself reported in 2008, the trade union movement in Colombia has been brought to the point of near extinction by violence specifically designed to wipe out the union movement as a whole, with only 4% of workers represented by unions; while in Venezuela, approximately 11% of workers are represented by unions – just under the rate of unionization in theUnited States (12.3%).

Now enters Juan Forero in the Washington Post (and in a condensed piece for NPR), who, in a very misleading and many times self-contradictory story, is claiming that Venezuela should now be considered “the most dangerous country in the world for trade unionists,” pushing Colombia out of the number one spot. This piece, which is getting a lot of attention, could not be better timed as far as policy-makers in the U.S. and Colombia are concerned. Thus, it came out just as Obama has announced a renewed interest in the Colombia Free Trade Agreement (despite his campaign pledge to oppose it based upon trade union considerations) as well as the recent attempt by Colombia to censure Venezuela at the OAS for allegedly harboring FARC guerrillas on its territory.

In his July 15, 2010 Washington Post piece entitled, “Venezuelan union clashes are on the rise as Chavez fosters new unions at odds with older ones,” Forero first acknowledges the fact that Venezuela considers itself “the most labor-friendly government in Latin America,” having “repeatedly increased the minimum wage, turned over the management of some nationalized companies to workers and fostered the creation of new unions.” In regard to the latter, Forero explains later in his piece that there are now “4,000 new unions, up from 1,300 in 2001” – a fact supporting Venezuela’s claim of being labor friendly.

However, the meat of Forero’s piece is to say that there is a sinister side to all of this – the killing of unionists, albeit by rival unions [as opposed to state or quazi-state forces as in the case of Colombia]. According to Forero, 75 unionists lost their lives in the past two years to such violence, 34 in the 12 months ending in May. Of course, in Colombia, 77 unionists have been killed in merely the past 1.5 years with 29 killed in the past 6 months, and this in the context of a country with much lower union density that Venezuela.

Still, Forero presses on, attempting to suggest that the killings in Venezuela are in fact politically motivated, and somehow the fault of the Chavez administration.

A close examination of Forero’s own piece, however, belies this claim. The most concrete example Forero gives of these “intra-union killings” is by way of an interview with Emilio Bastidas, a leader of the UNT, who talks of the murder of 8 union activists from the UNT in recent years. Bastidas himself is quoted in the story as saying that “We believe it is political to debilitate the UNT and cut us off from projecting ourselves.” While Forero explains that the UNT represents 80 unions, what he fails to tell the reader is that the UNT is a pro-Chavez union formed after the coup against Chavez in 2002. This is an incredible omission, for this obviously cuts against Forero’s premise that Chavez is somehow responsible for the violence. After all, why would Chavez want to interfere with the growth of a pro-Chavez labor federation?

From my own discussions with unionists in Venezuela, which I visited at the end of July and where I attended the third annual “Encuentro Sindical de Nuestra America” (Union Meeting of Our America) pro-Chavez unionists are much more often the target of the violence described in Forero’s piece than anti-Chavista unionists. As Jacobo Torres de Leon, Political Coordinator of the Fuerza Bolivariana de Trabajadores Dirrecion Nacional, responded to my questioning of him about the Forero piece, “there are no political killings like in Colombia.” Jacobo further emphasized that the unionists recently killed were his (pro-Chavez) comrades – a fact inconvenient to Forero’s well-publicized thesis. I should also note that President Chavez addressed the Union Meeting of Our America and was well received by the over 300 unionists in attendance from almost every country of the Western Hemisphere. At this meeting, Chavez called on workers to take control of the factories in which they work – good advice for us all.

There is an old saying, “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” It seems an appropriate prism through which to view this most current attempt to rescue the Colombia FTA from that nation’s own continuing and indisputable status as the number 1 country in the world for anti-union killings.

Daniel Kovalik is a graduate of the Columbia University School of Law and Senior Associate General Counsel of the United Steelworkers, AFL-CIO, where he has worked for over 17 years.”

August 09, 2010

namaste. Attached is the Invitation for the Samskrit Week Celebrations in Hyderabad, in Telugu script. For those of you who are not familiar with Telugu script, I have translated the contents into English and attached that file as well. You will notice that our team has designed a nice set of cultural and informational programmes in this connection.

We request you to join in with family and friends on all days of the week. Please share this information with those who might be interested in Samskrit in your neighbourhood or workplace. Where possible, please make effort to display this on notice boards. For details, you can call me on 98661 40406, or Samskrita Bharati office on 040-2475 0111 or 2475 0333. If you are interested in having the hard copy invitation, please write to us along with your complete postal address.

If you are connected with any academic or cultural institution, our Samskrita Saptaha Samchalana Samiti encourages you to celebrate Samskrit Day on any suitable day during the month of Shravan (August 11th to September 08th). If you need any help in this regard, please do write to us.

Samskrita Saptaha Samayojayana Samiti requests all educational institutions, Colleges, Schools and other social institutions to celebrate Samskrit Day at their premises during the month of Shravan (11th August to 8th September)

To the catastrophic weather events now occurring in Eurasia and the Sub-Continent it should be noted that we had previously warned of them coming in our January 6, 2010 report titled “Norway Time Hole “Leak” Plunges Northern Hemisphere Into Chaos” wherein we detailed the United States“testing” of their HAARP weather and atmospheric weapons in preparation for Total Global War.

Now in your understanding of how devastating these US weather weapons have been upon Russia, China, India and Pakistan one must first understand that the United States fiscal year ends on the last day of September of every year, which this year, and without their receiving an estimated $350 Billion in returned US Dollars (debt) by the end of September, they could very well go bankrupt as they are already undertaking what is being called as a “monster printing” of worthless paper money they can no longer sustain.

But, with the devastation being wrecked upon Eurasia’s and the Sub-Continents crops the United States will, beyond all doubt, have plenty of “willing buyers” for its grains they (coincidentally?) sell to the World only in US Dollars through their many debt instruments. Both Russia and China are able to by these US debt instruments in return for grain due to their massive reserve holdings.

Even worse for our entire planet in the United States use of these catastrophic weapons, for whatever reason, is their failure to remember one of more most ancient warnings, “What man does on the Earth so shall it be done in the Heavens”, and which may very well be responsible for our Sun, for the first time in recorded history, this Sunday past (August 1st) erupting upon its entire surface facing our Earthand unleashing at least two solar blasts due to hit us today.

[Ed. Note: Western governments and their intelligence services actively campaign against the information found in these reports so as not to alarm their citizens about the many catastrophic Earth changes and events to come, a stance that the Sisters of Sorcha Faal strongly disagrees with in believing that it is every human beings right to know the truth.Due to our missions conflicts with that of those governments, the responses of their ‘agents’ against us has been a longstanding misinformation/misdirection campaign designed to discredit and which is addressed in the report “Who Is Sorcha Faal?”.]

Disclaimer

The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the authors and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions or strategies of IntelliBriefs or any employee thereof. IntelliBriefs make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this blog and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use.

IntelliBriefs blog reserves the right to delete, edit, or alter in any manner it sees fit blog entries or comments that it, in its sole discretion, deems to be obscene, offensive, defamatory, threatening, in violation of trademark, copyright or other laws, or is otherwise unacceptable